Judgment :- 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 23.11.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.1421 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Tindivanam, awarding a compensation of Rs.60,000/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows: The natural guardian and mother of the minor Amrina, who was injured in the road accident, has filed the claim petition on behalf of her minor daughter. 4. On 19.02.1998, the minor petitioner, along with some of her other relatives, were travelling in a van bearing registration No.TN32 Z3868, from Kallakurichi to Madras to receive her relative, who was coming from abroad. When the van had passed Tindivanam and when the van was proceeding on the GST road, 2 Kms. away from Tindivanam, the first respondents lorry bearing registration No. TAY 2319, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the van resulting in the van turning turtle. In the impact, the minor petitioner and her relatives, who were travelling in the van received severe injuries. Due to the injuries sustained by her, the minor petitioner has sustained disability and mental agony. As the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondents lorry, both the first respondent as the owner of the lorry and the second respondent, its insurer are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Regaring the said accident, a criminal case has been registered at the Tindivanam Police Station in Crime No.118/1998, as against the driver of the first respondents lorry, under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. 6. In the counter filed by the second respondent and adopted by the first respondent, it has been stated that the manner of the accident, as alleged in the claim, is not true. The second respondent has submitted that the driver of the lorry took his trip at Chennai and was proceeding towards Villupuram. In the counter filed by the second respondent and adopted by the first respondent, it has been stated that the manner of the accident, as alleged in the claim, is not true. The second respondent has submitted that the driver of the lorry took his trip at Chennai and was proceeding towards Villupuram. The driver of the lorry drove the lorry slowly, carefully and adhering the traffic rules. When the lorry was nearing Tindivanam town limit, the driver of the lorry slowed down the speed as it was a dark night. At that time, a passenger van, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction, with dazzling halogen lights. When the driver of the said van overtook a vehicle ahead of it by crossing the meridian line, the driver of the lorry slowed down the speed of the lorry and kept to the left side of the road. In spite of this, the van dashed against the lorry and caused the accident. As such, the second respondent has submitted that the accident had been caused only by the fault of the driver of the van. 8. Further, the second respondent has denied the averments in the claim regarding the age, educational qualification, the nature of injuries sustained and permanent disability and has stated that these should be proved through documentary evidence. It has also been contended that as the collision was between two vehicles, the owner and insurer of the van should have been impleaded as necessary parties in the claim case to decide on the negligence issue. As such, it has been submitted that the claim application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It has also been stated that the minor petitioner has not sustained any injuries in the accident and as such the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-is excessive and has to be dismissed with costs. 9. Two other passengers in the van, who are relatives of the petitioner and who had also sustained injuries in the said accident, have filed M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 1999 and M.C.O.P.No.1584 of 1999, before the Tribunal. The Mumtaz, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 1999 was examined as PW1; Shakila, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.1421 of 1999 was examined as PW2 and Mrs.Shamsath, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.1584 of 1999 was examined as PW3. 10. The Mumtaz, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.1041 of 1999 was examined as PW1; Shakila, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.1421 of 1999 was examined as PW2 and Mrs.Shamsath, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.1584 of 1999 was examined as PW3. 10. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for the consideration namely: (i) Was the accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondents lorry? (ii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get? 11. On the petitioners side four witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW4, PW4 is the Doctor, who had assessed the disability of the petitioner and 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. On the respondents side no witness was examined and the insurance policy taken for the first respondents lorry was marked as Ex.R1. 12. Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR registered at the Tindivanam Town Police Station. On scrutiny of the Ex.P1, it is seen that the complaint had been given by one Babu, the driver of the van involved in the accident. It has been stated in the complaint that the driver of the respondents lorry, coming from Chennai had driven the lorry at a high speed and dashed the lorry against the van resulting in the van turning turtle. A minor girl Amrina, who had travelled in the van, was also injured in the accident. Her mother Shakila, PW2, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1192 of 1998. Another person, who had travelled in the van and who was also injured had filed a claim petition. In that case, as the respondents had remained absent, the case had been decided as against the respondents and the copy of the Criminal Court Judgment in that case has been marked as Ex.P2. From a scrutiny of Ex.R1, it is seen that the first respondents lorry had been covered under a valid policy of insurance with the second respondent and was valid till 28.11.1998. As the accident happened on 19.02.1998, the Tribunal held that the first respondents lorry had been insured with the second respondent at the time of accident. 13. Mumtaz, who was a passenger in the van was examined as PW1. The PW1 has travelled with her entire family in the said van from Thyagagurukkam in Kallakurichi Taluk of Villupuram District. As the accident happened on 19.02.1998, the Tribunal held that the first respondents lorry had been insured with the second respondent at the time of accident. 13. Mumtaz, who was a passenger in the van was examined as PW1. The PW1 has travelled with her entire family in the said van from Thyagagurukkam in Kallakurichi Taluk of Villupuram District. She had deposed that 14 persons had travelled in the said van and that she was one among them; that when the van had proceeded beyond Tindivanam, the first respondents lorry, coming in the opposite direction and which was driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, had dashed against the van and caused the accident. 14. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence of the PW1 and the FIR marked as Ex.P1 and also on scrutiny of the Ex.P2, the copy of the Judgment made in the M.C.O.P.No.1192 of 1998 and Ex.P4, the Wound Certificate issued to Amrina, the daughter of the Shakila at Tindivanam Government Hospital, as well as document Ex.R1 held that the accident had been caused only by the driver of the first respondents lorry and hence rejected the contention made on the part of the respondents side that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van. As such, the Tribunal held that as the first respondents lorry had been covered under a valid policy of insurance with the second respondent, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 15. The guardian and natural mother of the minor petitioner Amrina was examined as PW2. As such, the Tribunal held that as the first respondents lorry had been covered under a valid policy of insurance with the second respondent, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 15. The guardian and natural mother of the minor petitioner Amrina was examined as PW2. The PW2, in her evidence adduced that the minor petitioner was her daughter injured in the accident; that she was aged 9 years; that her minor daughter was studying in 5th standard at the Thyagagurukkam Primary School; that her daughter had sustained severe injuries on her head, hands and legs and that due to the accident her daughter had sustained damages in her skull and also had sustained injury in her brain; that as a result of this her girl had lost her brain; that as a result of this her girl had lost her memory power; that medical treatment was given to set right the injuries in the head of her daughter; that her girl had taken treatment as inpatient at Government General Hospital, Chennai, for two days; that subsequently she had taken treatment at Thyagagurukkam; that her girl is unable to comb her hair due to injuries sustained on her head; that she is not able to move along in a social way with others in her school; in support of her evidence, she has marked Ex.P4, the medical treatment records issued by the Government Hospital, Tindivanam. 16. One Dr.Ramanujam, a retired Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Pondicherry and who was the Medical Officer at a private hospital was examined as PW6. The PW6, in his evidence adduced that he had carried out a medical examination of the minor girl Amrina at his hospital and had stated that he had seen that the minor girl Amrina had sustained injuries in the said accident and that the injuries were visible on both sides of her head. He had stated that due to these injuries, the minor girl often loses her consciousness and also feels giddiness; that the minor girls face has become ugly; that due to injuries sustained in her head, the minor girl has lost the power of intelligence; that she would be unable to concentrate on anything; the Doctor further deposed that he had seen the medical treatment records of the minor girl. He had stated that due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident, the minor girl had sustained 45% disability and in support of his evidence, he has marked Ex.P11, the disability certificate. 17. On a scrutiny of the Wound Certificate issued at Government General Hospital, Tindivanam, it is seen that the minor girls age has been stated as 9 years. It is further seen from a scrutiny of the Wound Certificate that as the minor girl had sustained head injuries, she had been referred for further treatment to Government General Hospital, Chennai. It is further seen from the evidence let in by the petitioner, that the minor injured girl was studying in the 5th standard and that her intellectual capacity has been diminished due to injuries sustained in her head. As such, the Tribunal on considering that the minor girl, even at her tender age had sustained disability due to the injuries in the said accident, granted an award of Rs.60,000/-as a lumpsum compensation to the minor petitioner. The Tribunal further held that the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 18. The Tribunal directed the second respondent to deposit the above said award of Rs.60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, with costs, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1421 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Tindivanam. Further, after such deposit was made, the award was to be invested in a nationalised bank as fixed deposit, for a period of three years and the mother and natural guardian of the minor petitioner was allowed to receive the interest on such deposit, once in six months directly from the bank, until such time when the minor petitioner attains the age of major. The excess Court fee of Rs.200/- paid by the petitioner was to be refunded to her. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.2,500/-and the respondents were directed to pay the costs of Rs.2,708/- to the petitioner. 19. The excess Court fee of Rs.200/- paid by the petitioner was to be refunded to her. The Advocate fees was fixed at Rs.2,500/-and the respondents were directed to pay the costs of Rs.2,708/- to the petitioner. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to consider that the disability assessed by the Doctor at 45% was excessive considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and that the Tribunal had committed an error in not determining the multiplier to be adopted in this case. It has also been contended that the Tribunal committed a grave error in not working out the compensation under various heads as required under law and in not indicating the manner of assessment of the quantum. As such, it has been contended that the Tribunal awarded an excess compensation amount of Rs.40,000/-. As such, it has been prayed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent argued that the injured person was a minor at the time of the said accident and she was studying in the elementary school. After the said accident, she was unable to continue her studies. In the said accident, the minor girl was sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was admitted at Government Hospital, Tindivanam as inpatient. Further, the injured person sustained grievous injuries on her head, left shoulder and also bleeding injury all over the body. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the PW1 and medical records had assessed the compensation of a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Further the learned counsel argued that the injured person claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Further, he argued that after the said accident, she lost her memory power, hence, she is unable to continue her study. One Dr.K.Ramanujam had examined the injured person and assessed the disability stating that the claimant sustained 40% disability. As such, the injured minor is entitled to get a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of income and disability. But, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-as compensation, which is on the lower side. Further, he argued that after the said accident, the injured persons face has become disfiguration. As such the marriage prospectus has become diminished. But, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-as compensation, which is on the lower side. Further, he argued that after the said accident, the injured persons face has become disfiguration. As such the marriage prospectus has become diminished. The learned counsel further argued that the award granted by the Tribunal is a well considered one and there is no error on the said compensation. As such, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 21. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on scrutiny of findings of the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the claimant is a nine years old girl and has sustained injuries and consequent disfigurement of her face and that the Doctor had assessed the disability sustained by the claimant as 45%. Further, the claimant was a 5th standard student at the time of accident. Initially, she underwent treatment at Government Hospital and further treatment was given to her at Government Hospital, Chennai. As such, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the claimant as lumpsum compensation. 22. Considering the disability, pain and suffering undergone by the claimant, expenses for transport, nutrition and loss of pleasures of life incurred by the claimant as well as the disfigurement of the claimants face, the award amount of Rs.60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum granted by the Tribunal is not excessive. Hence, this Court confirms the award and decree dated 23.11.2001, in M.C.O.P.No.1421 of 1999, passed by the Principal Sub-Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam. 23. On 08.08.2005, this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, into the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1421 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Tindivanam. 24. As the accident happened in the year 1999, it is open to the claimant, having become a major, withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of the M.C.O.P.No.1421 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge), Tindivanam, after filing necessary payment out application in accordance with law, subject to deduction of withdrawals, if any. 25. 25. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Award and Decree, dated 23.11.2001, in M.C.O.P.No.1421 of 1999, passed by the Principal Sub-Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.